If they are one or separate legal entities, the fact remains it is publicly disclosed and the legal reasons behind are not mentioned - it is hard as mentioned - time is better spent on more important things if it will cost a lot of time. The team founded Spectro Finance and the companies within it are SpectroCoin, Bankera - that's the point of the quotes, who in the team works in which product or if someone carries responsibilities in both, that does not make a difference.
The ICO was created for more capital as capital is needed for banking services/products such as Bankera Loans.
I know, I read it.
Regarding whether it was disclosed or not, whether it was public information about one or two legal entities or not does not exclude the fact that there was no need to do it other than the hold on Spectrocoin as a base and use Bankera as an excuse to make money from the ICO. Why highlight that it was public information? it will not get any votes of either confidence or sympathy, nor will it portray either party as trustworthy.
In the end as it stands Spectrocoin does not have tokens of its own, it is privately owned. Bankera had an ICO and has tokens. Spectrocoin will go on and continue regardless of whether Bankera sinks or not but Bankera cannot survive without Spectrocoin.
It is clear Bankera was not needed to be created, it was just a ploy to make money for Spectrocoin owners without them having to offer shares or its platform/technology/eco system (which seems nothing special from what I can see) via tokens for it - thus Bankera was created. It seems Spectrocoin can play any way they want with Bankera and they will not lose out as Spectrocoin own technology that Bankera uses, even the retro and odd looking crypto exchange.
Bankera already has 2 products of its own and they work for cryptocurrency in general. It continues along with SpectroCoin and what will come.